About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> david patraeus testified before a closed hearing on the investigation concerning the consulate attack. following the hearing committee members spoke to reporters. >> so far seven hours of hearings, we have spent the last two hours with former director patraeus. he laid out his view, which was very much appreciated. he answered a large number of questions. we still have two additional hearings. hopefully the preparations of the findings and a public hearing. >> big two this was a terrorist attack within 24 hours? >> i will not comment now. we will most likely comment on those things in our final report. i think we have a ways to go yet. i think they are trying to be very careful and cautious. >> [indiscernible] >> since you asked that question -- the roles of our committee are you cannot use something that you learned in a classified session. i can give you my assessment based on questions, my investigation, that what susan rice did was use talking points, pulled out originally by the cia signed off by the intelligence community, those were requested by the house committee. the intelli
louisiana this morning. as we noted at the top of the segment, former c.i.a. director david patraeus will be testifying behind closed doors today in the senate elect's intelligence committee. for more on that, we want to turn to warren strobal from routers. mr. strobal, thanks for coming on. what are members of congress looking to hear from david petraeus today? >> well, they have a lot of questions. they want to know what the c.i.a. did to try to move its forces to help field the attack and protect the consulate. and even more than that, they want to know what the c.i.a. told the administration about the causes of the attack and why the explanation seemed to shift from an attack that was, grew out of the protest over the anti-muslim film throughout the middle east, to the explanation later that it was a terrorist attack. host: gives an update on the efforts to track down those involved in the attack. >> if you recall shortly after the attack, president obama said he would spare no effort to track down those who were involved in this attack, but so far there have been a handful of su
earlier, david patraeus, head of the cia has a statement released hussein no one at the cia in any way hindered or refuse to help for those four americans were killed. and then comes a time line, and then we see a number of news outlets reported that timeline by the cia as if it were gospel. for example, david ignatius at the washington post. a veteran foreign policy correspondent suddenly embracing the cia. i have never seen the likes of this. their version, but without even qualification. >> and you know the tragedy, i kept thinking, where were we in 1972 during the watergate break-in? that was a time, and that movie is seen by every reporter as the cult classic of how reporters investigate the troops got there up against the establishment and are going to fight for the truth. what has happened that is just the opposite. we have a mainstream media that does not want to fight for the truth. it is really the press office of an obama campaign, and i think when you look back 20 years from now and people look at this era, they're not going to talk about the things you and i are talking ab
the fbi agent heard that general patraeus was involved in this and there had possibly been a breach of his computer. he didn't have all the facts. he wasn't the agent on the case. he just knew bits and pieces of it. and because it had to do with petraeus and because he heard the words "national security," he was concerned and didn't want the agency to slow -- >> chris -- >> is humphrey a republican or democrat? i just want to know. is he pro or against the president? >> i really don't know what political stance the agent is, no. >> can i just cut in? what sari just said may be the only security breach in this case that we know happened for a fact. this agent who brought the case to the tampa field office was not part of the case, had been told repeatedly as we understand it not to get involved in the case, and if they've picked up in the course of it the fact that paula broadwell is involved with the cia director, how does he know that? he's not supposed to know that. >> bart's exactly right. obviously, he's getting information from the investigators or miss kelley, but he's not part of th
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)